Dr. Gowardhan S/O. Narayanrao ... vs State Of Maha., Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7793 Bom

Order                                                                                   wp6128.15
                                                 1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                           WRIT PETITION NO.6128/2015


          Dr.Gowardhan s/o. Narayanrao Dhomne,
          Aged about 59 years, Occ. Retired,
          r/o. 6th Prabhunagar, New Nandanvan,
          near Anand Nursery, Nagpur.                            ...     PETITIONER 


                        // VERSUS //

          1. State of Maharashtra,
              through its Secretary,
              General Health Department,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

          2. District Health Officer,
              Zilla Parishad, Wardha.

          3. Senior Accounts Officer,
              Zilla Parishad, Wardha.                            ...     RESPONDENTS

            -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                 Mr.A.S.Dhore, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                                 Mr.Ambarish Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
                                 Mr.J.Mokadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
            -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                          CORAM      :   ANOOP V. MOHTA &
                                                          M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 4.10.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J) :

1. Taken out from the Final hearing Board.

Order wp6128.15

2. Mr.A.S.Dhore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3961 of 2014, dt.21.1.2015 whereby, after considering a Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others etc. .vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2014 (14) Scale 300 submitted that the recovery after petitioner's retirement to the tune of Rs.40,258/- from pensionary benefits on the allegation that the said amount was erroneously released stated to be unsustainable. After hearing the petitioner and considering the rival contentions and the documents placed on record, we are inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition by directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 to refund the amount which has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within three months.

3. If the amount is not refunded within the stated period, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 8 % p.a. on the said amount. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

                         (M.G.GIRATKAR, J)                (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J)


        jaiswal